Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Atheist Movie
Author Message
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,252
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 318
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #21
RE: The Atheist Movie
Even if there was a god, you'd have to ask why he made nature so cruel.
02-19-2018 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,252
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 318
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #22
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 02:22 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  We know space, matter and time had a beginning. Even atheistic scientists such as Hawking admit this.

The catalyst for the beginning of space, matter and time had to be:
  • Spaceless
  • Timeless
  • Immaterial
  • Personal - to choose to initiate the universe
  • Powerful - to cause the universe to come into being
  • Intelligent - to design the universe to continue

To address the beginning of all that is material, the materialist has to stop at the point of beginning. They rule out other possibilities by definition. They can not contribute to discussion regarding the cause of the known universe.

Oh, they try to offer things like the quantum vacuum or the multi-verse, but the quantum vacuum actually is something rather than nothing and the multi-verse can't be tested by their own self-defined criteria (it's not observable). And even if the multi-verse existed the several multi-verses would all still fall back to that point of actual beginning.

Absolutely nothing related to god can be tested, so that's hardly a point in religion's defense, even if true.

We live by many abstracts. They simply are. The laws of logic, for instance, are abstract. They exist. In fact, they are a prerequisite for science.

Science can not be conducted outside the laws of logic.

Not sure what your point is. Logic is not in God's favor.
02-19-2018 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,142
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 853
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #23
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 02:21 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 01:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  We know space, matter and time had a beginning. Even atheistic scientists such as Hawking admit this.

The catalyst for the beginning of space, matter and time had to be:
  • Spaceless
  • Timeless
  • Immaterial
  • Personal - to choose to initiate the universe
  • Powerful - to cause the universe to come into being
  • Intelligent - to design the universe to continue

To address the beginning of all that is material, the materialist has to stop at the point of beginning. They rule out other possibilities by definition. They can not contribute to discussion regarding the cause of the known universe.

Oh, they try to offer things like the quantum vacuum or the multi-verse, but the quantum vacuum actually is something rather than nothing and the multi-verse can't be tested by their own self-defined criteria (it's not observable). And even if the multi-verse existed the several multi-verses would all still fall back to that point of actual beginning.

The issue with this line of reasoning is that the same questions remain whether our universe was created by a higher power or if it did in fact come about from "nothing". Who created God? The argument Comfort presents is built on the premise of complexity - which I suspect is going to come from Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" theory for why Intelligent Design trumps Evolution. That's getting ahead of ourselves here but not really according to Comfort because he's already set the table to conflate theories on origins with the theory of evolution.

Back on track. Comfort's case will be we were created because of the complexity of our universe, and that slight variations in the physical laws will cause our universe to be inhospitable to life. Considering how much life we've observed so far - the universe really IS INHOSPITABLE to life. But I digress... If the argument of complexity of our universe and earth specifically screams for a designer and a creator - then the argument is infinitely stronger for there to have been a designer and creator for God. This line of argumentation - IMHO - carries zero merit.

I'm at the 10:00 mark of the movie.

If this was a "being" it must be uncaused. If a being is not bound by time, that is, it's timeless, then "when" did the being begin?

That's kind of the point of "timeless".

Again, the same problem exists but only one step further removed. Let's just assume there is a realm beyond the timeless realm that was critical to creating the timeless realm. Since we're not talking about anything that can be tested or verified - then timeless beings were created by a timeless^2 being.
02-19-2018 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMTigerTim Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,423
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 168
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #24
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 02:22 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  We know space, matter and time had a beginning. Even atheistic scientists such as Hawking admit this.

The catalyst for the beginning of space, matter and time had to be:
  • Spaceless
  • Timeless
  • Immaterial
  • Personal - to choose to initiate the universe
  • Powerful - to cause the universe to come into being
  • Intelligent - to design the universe to continue

To address the beginning of all that is material, the materialist has to stop at the point of beginning. They rule out other possibilities by definition. They can not contribute to discussion regarding the cause of the known universe.

Oh, they try to offer things like the quantum vacuum or the multi-verse, but the quantum vacuum actually is something rather than nothing and the multi-verse can't be tested by their own self-defined criteria (it's not observable). And even if the multi-verse existed the several multi-verses would all still fall back to that point of actual beginning.

Absolutely nothing related to god can be tested, so that's hardly a point in religion's defense, even if true.

We live by many abstracts. They simply are. The laws of logic, for instance, are abstract. They exist. In fact, they are a prerequisite for science.

Science can not be conducted outside the laws of logic.

We don't know if space, matter, or time had a beginning. This is a "what came first the" chicken or the egg question.

In all likely hood the universe never had a beginning it just always has been.

We all know what gravity effects correct? We know the more mass an object has the more gravity it has but science still can't explain gravity. Let that sink in.
02-19-2018 02:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
umbluegray Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 42,183
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 2027
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
Post: #25
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 02:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Even if there was a god, you'd have to ask why he made nature so cruel.

What do you mean by nature?
02-19-2018 02:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
umbluegray Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 42,183
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 2027
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
Post: #26
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 02:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:22 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  We know space, matter and time had a beginning. Even atheistic scientists such as Hawking admit this.

The catalyst for the beginning of space, matter and time had to be:
  • Spaceless
  • Timeless
  • Immaterial
  • Personal - to choose to initiate the universe
  • Powerful - to cause the universe to come into being
  • Intelligent - to design the universe to continue

To address the beginning of all that is material, the materialist has to stop at the point of beginning. They rule out other possibilities by definition. They can not contribute to discussion regarding the cause of the known universe.

Oh, they try to offer things like the quantum vacuum or the multi-verse, but the quantum vacuum actually is something rather than nothing and the multi-verse can't be tested by their own self-defined criteria (it's not observable). And even if the multi-verse existed the several multi-verses would all still fall back to that point of actual beginning.

Absolutely nothing related to god can be tested, so that's hardly a point in religion's defense, even if true.

We live by many abstracts. They simply are. The laws of logic, for instance, are abstract. They exist. In fact, they are a prerequisite for science.

Science can not be conducted outside the laws of logic.

Not sure what your point is. Logic is not in God's favor.

Logic is an abstract. It's not material, yet it exists.
02-19-2018 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
umbluegray Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 42,183
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 2027
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
Post: #27
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 02:33 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:21 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 01:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  We know space, matter and time had a beginning. Even atheistic scientists such as Hawking admit this.

The catalyst for the beginning of space, matter and time had to be:
  • Spaceless
  • Timeless
  • Immaterial
  • Personal - to choose to initiate the universe
  • Powerful - to cause the universe to come into being
  • Intelligent - to design the universe to continue

To address the beginning of all that is material, the materialist has to stop at the point of beginning. They rule out other possibilities by definition. They can not contribute to discussion regarding the cause of the known universe.

Oh, they try to offer things like the quantum vacuum or the multi-verse, but the quantum vacuum actually is something rather than nothing and the multi-verse can't be tested by their own self-defined criteria (it's not observable). And even if the multi-verse existed the several multi-verses would all still fall back to that point of actual beginning.

The issue with this line of reasoning is that the same questions remain whether our universe was created by a higher power or if it did in fact come about from "nothing". Who created God? The argument Comfort presents is built on the premise of complexity - which I suspect is going to come from Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" theory for why Intelligent Design trumps Evolution. That's getting ahead of ourselves here but not really according to Comfort because he's already set the table to conflate theories on origins with the theory of evolution.

Back on track. Comfort's case will be we were created because of the complexity of our universe, and that slight variations in the physical laws will cause our universe to be inhospitable to life. Considering how much life we've observed so far - the universe really IS INHOSPITABLE to life. But I digress... If the argument of complexity of our universe and earth specifically screams for a designer and a creator - then the argument is infinitely stronger for there to have been a designer and creator for God. This line of argumentation - IMHO - carries zero merit.

I'm at the 10:00 mark of the movie.

If this was a "being" it must be uncaused. If a being is not bound by time, that is, it's timeless, then "when" did the being begin?

That's kind of the point of "timeless".

Again, the same problem exists but only one step further removed. Let's just assume there is a realm beyond the timeless realm that was critical to creating the timeless realm. Since we're not talking about anything that can be tested or verified - then timeless beings were created by a timeless^2 being.

You're applying an infinite regress, a time concept, to a being outside of time.
02-19-2018 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
umbluegray Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 42,183
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 2027
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
Post: #28
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 02:34 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:22 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  We know space, matter and time had a beginning. Even atheistic scientists such as Hawking admit this.

The catalyst for the beginning of space, matter and time had to be:
  • Spaceless
  • Timeless
  • Immaterial
  • Personal - to choose to initiate the universe
  • Powerful - to cause the universe to come into being
  • Intelligent - to design the universe to continue

To address the beginning of all that is material, the materialist has to stop at the point of beginning. They rule out other possibilities by definition. They can not contribute to discussion regarding the cause of the known universe.

Oh, they try to offer things like the quantum vacuum or the multi-verse, but the quantum vacuum actually is something rather than nothing and the multi-verse can't be tested by their own self-defined criteria (it's not observable). And even if the multi-verse existed the several multi-verses would all still fall back to that point of actual beginning.

Absolutely nothing related to god can be tested, so that's hardly a point in religion's defense, even if true.

We live by many abstracts. They simply are. The laws of logic, for instance, are abstract. They exist. In fact, they are a prerequisite for science.

Science can not be conducted outside the laws of logic.

We don't know if space, matter, or time had a beginning. This is a "what came first the" chicken or the egg question.

In all likely hood the universe never had a beginning it just always has been.

We all know what gravity effects correct? We know the more mass an object has the more gravity it has but science still can't explain gravity. Let that sink in.

You can say we don't know but that is the current scientific understanding.
02-19-2018 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lord Stanley Offline
L'Étoile du Nord
*

Posts: 19,103
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 994
I Root For: NIU
Location: Cold. So cold......
Post: #29
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 02:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Even if there was a god, you'd have to ask why he made nature so cruel.

What do you mean by nature?

[Image: 350px-Kevin-Carter-Child-Vulture-Sudan.jpg]
02-19-2018 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,142
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 853
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #30
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 02:52 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Even if there was a god, you'd have to ask why he made nature so cruel.

What do you mean by nature?

[Image: 350px-Kevin-Carter-Child-Vulture-Sudan.jpg]

Looks like someone ate the wrong fruit to me...
02-19-2018 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
umbluegray Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 42,183
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 2027
I Root For: The Tigers!
Location: Memphis
Post: #31
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 02:52 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:49 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Even if there was a god, you'd have to ask why he made nature so cruel.

What do you mean by nature?

[Image: 350px-Kevin-Carter-Child-Vulture-Sudan.jpg]

Do you specifically mean the human condition?
02-19-2018 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,142
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 853
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #32
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 02:51 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:33 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 02:21 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 01:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  We know space, matter and time had a beginning. Even atheistic scientists such as Hawking admit this.

The catalyst for the beginning of space, matter and time had to be:
  • Spaceless
  • Timeless
  • Immaterial
  • Personal - to choose to initiate the universe
  • Powerful - to cause the universe to come into being
  • Intelligent - to design the universe to continue

To address the beginning of all that is material, the materialist has to stop at the point of beginning. They rule out other possibilities by definition. They can not contribute to discussion regarding the cause of the known universe.

Oh, they try to offer things like the quantum vacuum or the multi-verse, but the quantum vacuum actually is something rather than nothing and the multi-verse can't be tested by their own self-defined criteria (it's not observable). And even if the multi-verse existed the several multi-verses would all still fall back to that point of actual beginning.

The issue with this line of reasoning is that the same questions remain whether our universe was created by a higher power or if it did in fact come about from "nothing". Who created God? The argument Comfort presents is built on the premise of complexity - which I suspect is going to come from Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" theory for why Intelligent Design trumps Evolution. That's getting ahead of ourselves here but not really according to Comfort because he's already set the table to conflate theories on origins with the theory of evolution.

Back on track. Comfort's case will be we were created because of the complexity of our universe, and that slight variations in the physical laws will cause our universe to be inhospitable to life. Considering how much life we've observed so far - the universe really IS INHOSPITABLE to life. But I digress... If the argument of complexity of our universe and earth specifically screams for a designer and a creator - then the argument is infinitely stronger for there to have been a designer and creator for God. This line of argumentation - IMHO - carries zero merit.

I'm at the 10:00 mark of the movie.

If this was a "being" it must be uncaused. If a being is not bound by time, that is, it's timeless, then "when" did the being begin?

That's kind of the point of "timeless".

Again, the same problem exists but only one step further removed. Let's just assume there is a realm beyond the timeless realm that was critical to creating the timeless realm. Since we're not talking about anything that can be tested or verified - then timeless beings were created by a timeless^2 being.

You're applying an infinite regress, a time concept, to a being outside of time.

How do we know such a concept exists?
02-19-2018 02:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #33
RE: The Atheist Movie
Like I said, if I'm wrong in my faith when I die there will be nothing.

If I'm right there's going to be a few of you on here who are going to be spending eternity wishing you weren't wrong.
02-19-2018 03:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bubbapt Offline
Uh, what?
*

Posts: 12,894
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 480
I Root For: Memphis
Location: St. Louis

Donators
Post: #34
RE: The Atheist Movie
Why do Christians care what atheists think? That’s the same kind of nanny BS that liberals pull.
02-19-2018 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SuperFlyBCat Offline
Banned

Posts: 49,583
Joined: Mar 2005
I Root For: America and UC
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #35
RE: The Atheist Movie
So we know at one point or time the Earth never existed. Then, as some believe the Big Bang happened, and that led to the formation of our solar system. The Earth was devoid of life, there was nothing. Then some organism appeared from nowhere, mutated, and from that all life form was created? All of the fish, birds, animals, insects, mammals, humans? In essence life was created from nothing? I will take intelligent design for $500 Alex.

I got this from another website,
As a former atheist/agnostic, I used to believe in evolution and considered it the prime scientific and objective evidence that spoke against the existence of a god and/or creationism. However, the fact is that evolution is simply a theory that cannot be observed or tested. Believing in evolution takes as much if not more a leap of faith than believing in creationism. And in the end, whether we choose to believe in God or not, the theory that the universe and life were created by an intelligent designer makes more sense than the theory that it evolved out of nothing. To say that something came into existence out of nothing is neither realistic nor scientific, as it violates the law of causality. The Big Bang theory doesn't explain it either. The second law of thermodynamics states that organization cannot flow from chaos. Order will move naturally towards disorder, and we can observe this today as well; we have species becoming extinct, we do not see them evolving. Also, matter and energy have to come from somewhere. The world's top scientists with their unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into an organic living cell.

What is the chance that life has risen randomly, on the early earth? The chance can actually be calculated, and it's stunning to consider, it's a fact that life cannot exist or function without proteins; proteins exist within the cell and are required for the structure, function and regulation of the body, they are essential components of muscles, skin, bones and the body as a whole. Proteins are made up of chains of aminoacids and aminoacids in the chain must be in the proper order or sequential arrangement for the protein to form. Pretending for the sake of the argument that an aminoacid compound could have formed into a protein by itself on the early Earth, let's pretend a prebiotic soup existed and that this soup contained the necessary conditions/components required for an aminoacid chain to form randomly, on its own; what would the chance of that happening be? What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35 trillion attempts, it only arrived at 14 letters correctly.

A scientific method is based on the collection of data through observation and experimentation. Darwinian evolution cannot be observed and replicated in order to be scientifically validated and also there is not one single known case of a change of kinds. A desired trait can be produced e.g. in dogs by selecting certain dogs with that particular trait and so many new races of dogs can develop. However, one can never develop a cat by means of selective dog breeding. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. Of course evolutionists will say that this happens over millions+ of years and children are taught in schools that life can evolve given enough time. But this is as false a statement without any scientific support. Time does not make impossible things possible. A chimp at a typewriter punching keys randomly would not eventually type Homer's Iliad or Edgar Allan Poe's Raven. And when you put it that way, it sounds like nonsense. And where are the fossils to prove it? If evolution occured as it should, many millions of years ago, we would still find transitionary fossils. The Coelacanth fish was said to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. However, this myth fell in the late 30s, when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman's net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It turned out that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years. Also, the fish did not have any half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was just a regular fish that people thought to have become extinct. Evolutionists claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs. Yet the fish that was caught appeared exactly the same as the 350 million-year-old fossil. There was no evolution.

Others use certain "vestigial" bones or body parts that they believe to serve no purpose as evidence of evolution. For example, the coccyx (tailbone) has long been wrongly thought to be vestigial by evolutionists. It is an important source of attachment for tendons, ligaments and muscles. Or, more frequently, the appendix, which sometimes even gets removed by doctors "just to make sure". The appendix however was found to be part of the immune system.

Evolutionists believe in the mutation theory for the origin of many species. While we can observe mutations today, when they occur, they typically cause crippling diseases and/or render the animal infertile. Mutations are but DNA replication errors, they are damage that passes on to the offspring. Replication also contains built-in error checking. The frequency of errors is about 1 per 100 million bonds.

The theory of evolution was developed about 140 years ago by Charles Darwin (actually, by his grandfather in 1794), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false. Scientists around that time believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. However, now we know it is not that simple. Even a simple single cell organism is so complex it requires intelligent design. And yet the most modern and performant laboratoryhas been unable to create a single living cell. Scientists have been unable to create even a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.
02-19-2018 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,252
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 318
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #36
RE: The Atheist Movie
Life can't be created from non-life, but an invisible, omniscient, all-powerful being can?
02-19-2018 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lord Stanley Offline
L'Étoile du Nord
*

Posts: 19,103
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 994
I Root For: NIU
Location: Cold. So cold......
Post: #37
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 02:54 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Do you specifically mean the human condition?

I do, yes. Only speaking for me.

I know the arguments why life is so bad but there is god, I just don't buy it and won't be convinced otherwise.
02-19-2018 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SuperFlyBCat Offline
Banned

Posts: 49,583
Joined: Mar 2005
I Root For: America and UC
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #38
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 03:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Life can't be created from non-life, but an invisible, omniscient, all-powerful being can?

Yes. Maybe invisible to you. Do you hear a dog whistle like a dog does?
02-19-2018 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,252
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 318
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #39
RE: The Atheist Movie
Not even just the human condition. Animals have to eat each other, sometimes the prey animal is still alive while it gets eaten. Why not just make everyone herbivores?

And why have small children too young to know anything get swept away by a tsunami and drowned with a couple hundred thousand other people?
02-19-2018 03:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,252
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 318
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #40
RE: The Atheist Movie
(02-19-2018 03:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  
(02-19-2018 03:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Life can't be created from non-life, but an invisible, omniscient, all-powerful being can?

Yes. Maybe invisible to you. Do you hear a dog whistle like a dog does?

Who is he not invisible to?
02-19-2018 03:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.